The JEC, JER, and total systematic uncertainties in unfolded cross sections as functions of transverse momentum, for 1.5<|y|<2. The total systematic uncertainty includes also the luminosity, jet identification and trigger efficiency uncertainties.

The unfolded measured particle-level inclusive jet cross section as functions of jet pT (markers), for |y|<0.5, compared to the NLO perturbative QCD prediction (histogram), using the CT14NLO PDF set, with muR = muF = HT, and corrected for the NP effects. The experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are shown.

The unfolded measured particle-level inclusive jet cross section as functions of jet pT (markers), for 0.5<|y|<1, compared to the NLO perturbative QCD prediction (histogram), using the CT14NLO PDF set, with muR = muF = HT, and corrected for the NP effects. The experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are shown.

The unfolded measured particle-level inclusive jet cross section as functions of jet pT (markers), for 1<|y|<1.5, compared to the NLO perturbative QCD prediction (histogram), using the CT14NLO PDF set, with muR = muF = HT, and corrected for the NP effects. The experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are shown.

The unfolded measured particle-level inclusive jet cross section as functions of jet pT (markers), for 1.5<|y|<2, compared to the NLO perturbative QCD prediction (histogram), using the CT14NLO PDF set, with muR = muF = HT, and corrected for the NP effects. The experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NLO PDF set, with mu = pT, for |y|<0.5. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NLO PDF set, with mu = pT, for 0.5<|y|<1. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NLO PDF set, with mu = pT, for 1<|y|<1.5. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NLO PDF set, with mu = pT, for 1.5<|y|<2. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for |y|<0.5. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for 0.5<|y|<1. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for 1<|y|<1.5. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for 1.5<|y|<2. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NNLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NNLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for |y|<0.5. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NNLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NNLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for 0.5<|y|<1. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NNLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NNLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for 1<|y|<1.5. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NNLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NNLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for 1.5<|y|<2. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NNLO theoretical predictions, using the NNPDF31NNLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for |y|<0.5. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NNLO theoretical predictions, using the NNPDF31NNLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for 0.5<|y|<1. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NNLO theoretical predictions, using the NNPDF31NNLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for 1<|y|<1.5. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NNLO theoretical predictions, using the NNPDF31NNLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for 1.5<|y|<2. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

The effect of aS(MZ) variation, for |y|<0.5. The NNLO theoretical cross section predictions using the NNPDF31NNLO PDF with m = HT, calculated for different choices of aS (0.108, 0.110, 0.112, 0.114, 0.116, 0.117, 0.118, 0.119, 0.120, 0.122, and 0.124), are divided by the benchmark NNLO prediction for aS = 0.118 and the same choice of PDF set, muR, and muF. Also shown is the experimental unfolded measurement divided by the same benchmark prediction. The width of the unity line corresponds to the statistical uncertainty from the MC integration for the determination of the NNLO prediction. The error bars on the unfolded data correspond to the total experimental statistical and systematic uncertainty added in quadrature.

The effect of aS(MZ) variation, for 0.5<|y|<1. The NNLO theoretical cross section predictions using the NNPDF31NNLO PDF with m = HT, calculated for different choices of aS (0.108, 0.110, 0.112, 0.114, 0.116, 0.117, 0.118, 0.119, 0.120, 0.122, and 0.124), are divided by the benchmark NNLO prediction for aS = 0.118 and the same choice of PDF set, muR, and muF. Also shown is the experimental unfolded measurement divided by the same benchmark prediction. The width of the unity line corresponds to the statistical uncertainty from the MC integration for the determination of the NNLO prediction. The error bars on the unfolded data correspond to the total experimental statistical and systematic uncertainty added in quadrature.

The effect of aS(MZ) variation, for 1<|y|<1.5. The NNLO theoretical cross section predictions using the NNPDF31NNLO PDF with m = HT, calculated for different choices of aS (0.108, 0.110, 0.112, 0.114, 0.116, 0.117, 0.118, 0.119, 0.120, 0.122, and 0.124), are divided by the benchmark NNLO prediction for aS = 0.118 and the same choice of PDF set, muR, and muF. Also shown is the experimental unfolded measurement divided by the same benchmark prediction. The width of the unity line corresponds to the statistical uncertainty from the MC integration for the determination of the NNLO prediction. The error bars on the unfolded data correspond to the total experimental statistical and systematic uncertainty added in quadrature.

The effect of aS(MZ) variation, for 1.5<|y|<2. The NNLO theoretical cross section predictions using the NNPDF31NNLO PDF with m = HT, calculated for different choices of aS (0.108, 0.110, 0.112, 0.114, 0.116, 0.117, 0.118, 0.119, 0.120, 0.122, and 0.124), are divided by the benchmark NNLO prediction for aS = 0.118 and the same choice of PDF set, muR, and muF. Also shown is the experimental unfolded measurement divided by the same benchmark prediction. The width of the unity line corresponds to the statistical uncertainty from the MC integration for the determination of the NNLO prediction. The error bars on the unfolded data correspond to the total experimental statistical and systematic uncertainty added in quadrature.

Unfolded correlation matrix for |y|<0.5.

Unfolded correlation matrix for 0.5<|y|<1.

Unfolded correlation matrix for 1<|y|<1.5.

Unfolded correlation matrix for 1.5<|y|<2.

Self-normalised yield of electrons from heavy-flavour hadron decays as a function of normalised charged-particle pseudorapidity density at midrapidity computed in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV in different $p_{\rm T}$ intervals

Self-normalised yield of electrons from heavy-flavour hadron decays as a function of normalised charged-particle pseudorapidity density at midrapidity computed in p--pPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 8.16 TeV in different $p_{\rm T}$ intervals

Measured unfolded differential cross-section as a function of the dilepton transverse momentum $p^{ll}_{\mathrm{T}}$. NLO predictions from Sherpa 2.2.10 and MadGraph5_aMC@NLO 2.7.3 are also shown. The uncertainty in the predictions is divided into statistical and theoretical uncertainties (scale and PDF+$\alpha_{s}$).

Measured unfolded differential cross-section as a function of the the four-body transverse momentum $p^{ll\gamma\gamma}_{\mathrm{T}}$. NLO predictions from Sherpa 2.2.10 and MadGraph5_aMC@NLO 2.7.3 are also shown. The uncertainty in the predictions is divided into statistical and theoretical uncertainties (scale and PDF+$\alpha_{s}$).

Measured unfolded differential cross-section as a function of the diphoton invariant mass $m_{\gamma\gamma}$. NLO predictions from Sherpa 2.2.10 and MadGraph5_aMC@NLO 2.7.3 are also shown. The uncertainty in the predictions is divided into statistical and theoretical uncertainties (scale and PDF+$\alpha_{s}$).

Measured unfolded differential cross-section as a function of the four-body invariant mass $m_{ll\gamma\gamma}$. NLO predictions from Sherpa 2.2.10 and MadGraph5_aMC@NLO 2.7.3 are also shown. The uncertainty in the predictions is divided into statistical and theoretical uncertainties (scale and PDF+$\alpha_{s}$).

Expected and observed $95\%$ confidence intervals for the coupling parameters $f_{T,j}/\Lambda^{4}$ of transverse dimension-8 operators. All parameter values outside of the stated range are excluded at the chosen confidence level. No unitarity constraints are applied.

Expected and observed unitarised $95\%$ confidence intervals for the coupling parameter $f_{T,8}/\Lambda^{4}$ in the clipping energy range between 1.1 and 5 TeV. The non-unitarised limits ($E_c = \infty$) are also shown. All parameter values outside of the stated range are excluded at the chosen confidence level.

Expected and observed unitarised $95\%$ confidence intervals for the coupling parameter $f_{T,0}/\Lambda^{4}$ in the clipping energy range between 1.1 and 5 TeV. The non-unitarised limits ($E_c = \infty$) are also shown. All parameter values outside of the stated range are excluded at the chosen confidence level.

Expected and observed unitarised $95\%$ confidence intervals for the coupling parameter $f_{T,1}/\Lambda^{4}$ in the clipping energy range between 1.1 and 5 TeV. The non-unitarised limits ($E_c = \infty$) are also shown. All parameter values outside of the stated range are excluded at the chosen confidence level.

Expected and observed unitarised $95\%$ confidence intervals for the coupling parameter $f_{T,2}/\Lambda^{4}$ in the clipping energy range between 1.1 and 5 TeV. The non-unitarised limits ($E_c = \infty$) are also shown. All parameter values outside of the stated range are excluded at the chosen confidence level.

Expected and observed unitarised $95\%$ confidence intervals for the coupling parameter $f_{T,5}/\Lambda^{4}$ in the clipping energy range between 1.1 and 5 TeV. The non-unitarised limits ($E_c = \infty$) are also shown. All parameter values outside of the stated range are excluded at the chosen confidence level.

Expected and observed unitarised $95\%$ confidence intervals for the coupling parameter $f_{T,6}/\Lambda^{4}$ in the clipping energy range between 1.1 and 5 TeV. The non-unitarised limits ($E_c = \infty$) are also shown. All parameter values outside of the stated range are excluded at the chosen confidence level.

Expected and observed unitarised $95\%$ confidence intervals for the coupling parameter $f_{T,7}/\Lambda^{4}$ in the clipping energy range between 1.1 and 5 TeV. The non-unitarised limits ($E_c = \infty$) are also shown. All parameter values outside of the stated range are excluded at the chosen confidence level.

Expected and observed unitarised $95\%$ confidence intervals for the coupling parameter $f_{T,9}/\Lambda^{4}$ in the clipping energy range between 1.1 and 5 TeV. The non-unitarised limits ($E_c = \infty$) are also shown. All parameter values outside of the stated range are excluded at the chosen confidence level.

Jet multiplicity measured for a leading-pT jet ($p_{T1}$) with 400 < $p_{T1}$ < 800 GeV and for an azimuthal separation between the two leading jets of $0 < \Delta\Phi_{1,2} < 150^{\circ}$. The full breakdown of the uncertainties is displayed, with PU corresponding to Pileup, PREF to Trigger Prefering, PTHAT to the hard-scale (renormalization and factorization scales), MISS and FAKE to the inefficienties and background, LUMI to integrated luminosity. With JES, JER and stat. unc. following the notation in the paper.

Jet multiplicity measured for a leading-pT jet ($p_{T1}$) with 400 < $p_{T1}$ < 800 GeV and for an azimuthal separation between the two leading jets of $150 < \Delta\Phi_{1,2} < 170^{\circ}$. The full breakdown of the uncertainties is displayed, with PU corresponding to Pileup, PREF to Trigger Prefering, PTHAT to the hard-scale (renormalization and factorization scales), MISS and FAKE to the inefficienties and background, LUMI to integrated luminosity. With JES, JER and stat. unc. following the notation in the paper.

Jet multiplicity measured for a leading-pT jet ($p_{T1}$) with 400 < $p_{T1}$ < 800 GeV and for an azimuthal separation between the two leading jets of $170 < \Delta\Phi_{1,2} < 180^{\circ}$. The full breakdown of the uncertainties is displayed, with PU corresponding to Pileup, PREF to Trigger Prefering, PTHAT to the hard-scale (renormalization and factorization scales), MISS and FAKE to the inefficienties and background, LUMI to integrated luminosity. With JES, JER and stat. unc. following the notation in the paper.

Jet multiplicity measured for a leading-pT jet ($p_{T1}$) with $p_{T1}$ > 800 and for an azimuthal separation between the two leading jets of $0 < \Delta\Phi_{1,2} < 150^{\circ}$. The full breakdown of the uncertainties is displayed, with PU corresponding to Pileup, PREF to Trigger Prefering, PTHAT to the hard-scale (renormalization and factorization scales), MISS and FAKE to the inefficienties and background, LUMI to integrated luminosity. With JES, JER and stat. unc. following the notation in the paper.

Jet multiplicity measured for a leading-pT jet ($p_{T1}$) with $p_{T1}$ > 800 and for an azimuthal separation between the two leading jets of $150 < \Delta\Phi_{1,2} < 170^{\circ}$. The full breakdown of the uncertainties is displayed, with PU corresponding to Pileup, PREF to Trigger Prefering, PTHAT to the hard-scale (renormalization and factorization scales), MISS and FAKE to the inefficienties and background, LUMI to integrated luminosity. With JES, JER and stat. unc. following the notation in the paper.

Jet multiplicity measured for a leading-pT jet ($p_{T1}$) with $p_{T1}$ > 800 and for an azimuthal separation between the two leading jets of $170 < \Delta\Phi_{1,2} < 180^{\circ}$. The full breakdown of the uncertainties is displayed, with PU corresponding to Pileup, PREF to Trigger Prefering, PTHAT to the hard-scale (renormalization and factorization scales), MISS and FAKE to the inefficienties and background, LUMI to integrated luminosity. With JES, JER and stat. unc. following the notation in the paper.

Measured transverse momentum of the leading $p_{T}$ jet ($p_{T1}$). The full breakdown of the uncertainties is displayed, with PU corresponding to Pileup, PREF to Trigger Prefering, PTHAT to the hard-scale (renormalization and factorization scales), MISS and FAKE to the inefficienties and background, LUMI to integrated luminosity. With JES, JER and stat. unc. following the notation in the paper.

Measured transverse momentum of the subleading $p_{T}$ jet ($p_{T2}$). The full breakdown of the uncertainties is displayed, with PU corresponding to Pileup, PREF to Trigger Prefering, PTHAT to the hard-scale (renormalization and factorization scales), MISS and FAKE to the inefficienties and background, LUMI to integrated luminosity. With JES, JER and stat. unc. following the notation in the paper.

Measured transverse momentum of the third leading $p_{T}$ jet ($p_{T3}$). The full breakdown of the uncertainties is displayed, with PU corresponding to Pileup, PREF to Trigger Prefering, PTHAT to the hard-scale (renormalization and factorization scales), MISS and FAKE to the inefficienties and background, LUMI to integrated luminosity. With JES, JER and stat. unc. following the notation in the paper.

Measured transverse momentum of the fourth leading $p_{T}$ jet ($p_{T4}$). The full breakdown of the uncertainties is displayed, with PU corresponding to Pileup, PREF to Trigger Prefering, PTHAT to the hard-scale (renormalization and factorization scales), MISS and FAKE to the inefficienties and background, LUMI to integrated luminosity. With JES, JER and stat. unc. following the notation in the paper.

Jet multiplicity distribution in TUnfold binning ($N_{jets},\Delta\phi_{1,2},p_{T1}$) as indicated in the XML file provided as additional resource. The uncertainties follow the notation of Table 1.

Correlation matrix at particle level for the measured jet multiplicity in TUnfold binning ($N_{jets},\Delta\phi_{1,2},p_{T1}$) as indicated in the XML file provided as additional resource.

Jet $p_{T}$ distributions in TUnfold binning ($p_{T1},p_{T2},p_{T3},p_{T4}$) as indicated in the XML file provided as additional resource. The uncertainties follow the notation of Table 1.

Correlation matrix at particle level for the measured jet $p_{T}$ distributions in TUnfold binning ($p_{T1},p_{T2},p_{T3},p_{T4}$) as indicated in the XML file provided as additional resource.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\varphi\text{Q}}^{3}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are fixed to 0.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\varphi\text{t}}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are fixed to 0.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\varphi\text{tb}}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are fixed to 0.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\text{tW}}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are fixed to 0.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\text{bW}}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are fixed to 0.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\text{tZ}}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are fixed to 0.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\text{t}\varphi}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are simultaneously fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\varphi\text{Q}}^{-}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are simultaneously fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\varphi\text{Q}}^{3}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are simultaneously fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\varphi\text{t}}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are simultaneously fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\varphi\text{tb}}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are simultaneously fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\text{tW}}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are simultaneously fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\text{bW}}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are simultaneously fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\text{tZ}}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are simultaneously fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\varphi\text{t}}, \text{c}_{\varphi\text{Q}}^{-}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are fixed to 0.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\varphi\text{Q}}^{3}, \text{c}_{\varphi\text{Q}}^{-}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are fixed to 0.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\text{tW}}, \text{c}_{\text{tZ}}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are fixed to 0.

The rho-parameter, i.e. the ratio of the real to imaginary part of the elastic scattering amplitude extrapolated to t=0. The systematic uncertainty includes experimental and theoretical uncerainties.

The nuclear slope parameter B from a fit of the form exp(-Bt-Ct^2-Dt^3). The systematic uncertainty includes experimental and theoretical uncerainties.

The nuclear slope parameter B from a fit of the form exp(-Bt-Ct^2-Dt^3). The systematic uncertainty includes experimental and theoretical uncerainties.

The nuclear slope parameter C from a fit of the form exp(-Bt-Ct^2-Dt^3). The systematic uncertainty includes experimental and theoretical uncerainties.

The nuclear slope parameter C from a fit of the form exp(-Bt-Ct^2-Dt^3). The systematic uncertainty includes experimental and theoretical uncerainties.

The nuclear slope parameter D from a fit of the form exp(-Bt-Ct^2-Dt^3). The systematic uncertainty includes experimental and theoretical uncerainties.

The nuclear slope parameter D from a fit of the form exp(-Bt-Ct^2-Dt^3). The systematic uncertainty includes experimental and theoretical uncerainties.

The total elastic cross section measured inside the fiducial volume. The systematic uncertainty includes experimental uncertainties.

The total elastic cross section measured inside the fiducial volume. The systematic uncertainty includes experimental uncertainties.

The total elastic cross section obtained from the fitted parameters, extrapolated to full phase space using only the nuclear amplitude.

The total elastic cross section obtained from the fitted parameters, extrapolated to full phase space using only the nuclear amplitude.

The total inelastic cross section.

The total inelastic cross section.

The ratio of elastic to total cross section.

The ratio of elastic to total cross section.

The differential elastic cross section as function of t with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The systematic uncertainties are given as signed relative change for 20 sources of experimental uncertainty associated to nuisance parameters used in the fit for the extraction of physics parameters.

The differential elastic cross section as function of t with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The systematic uncertainties are given as signed relative change for 20 sources of experimental uncertainty associated to nuisance parameters used in the fit for the extraction of physics parameters.

Statistical covariance matrix for the measurement of the differential elastic cross section as function of t.

Statistical covariance matrix for the measurement of the differential elastic cross section as function of t.

Ratio of measured PSI(2S) over J/PSI(1S) cross section in charged-particle multiplicity intervals and integrated in multiplicity.

Ratio of measured PSI(2S) over J/PSI(1S) cross section in charged-particle multiplicity intervals and integrated in multiplicity.

Ratio of measured PSI(2S) over J/PSI(1S) cross section in charged-particle multiplicity intervals and integrated in multiplicity.

Measured inclusive fiducial $tt\gamma$ production cross section in the dilepton final state for the different dilepton-flavour channels and combined.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\gamma)$ . The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $|\eta |(\gamma)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell_{1})$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell_{2})$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\gamma, b)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $|\Delta\eta(\ell\ell)|$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $\Delta \phi(\ell\ell)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\ell\ell) $. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\ell_{1})+p_{T}(\ell_{2})$ . The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\ell, j)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $p_{T}(j_{1})$ .

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\gamma)$ . The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $|\eta |(\gamma)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell_{1})$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell_{2})$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\gamma, b)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $|\Delta\eta(\ell\ell)|$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $\Delta \phi(\ell\ell)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\ell\ell) $. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\ell_{1})+p_{T}(\ell_{2})$ . The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\ell, j)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $p_{T}(j_{1})$ . The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\gamma)$ .

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\gamma)$ .

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $|\eta |(\gamma)$.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $|\eta |(\gamma)$.

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell)$.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell)$.

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell_{1})$.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell_{1})$.

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell_{2})$.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell_{2})$.

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\gamma, b)$.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\gamma, b)$.

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $|\Delta\eta(\ell\ell)|$.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $|\Delta\eta(\ell\ell)|$.

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $\Delta \phi(\ell\ell)$.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $\Delta \phi(\ell\ell)$.

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\ell\ell) $.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\ell\ell) $.

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\ell_{1})+p_{T}(\ell_{2})$ .

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\ell_{1})+p_{T}(\ell_{2})$ .

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\ell, j)$.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\ell, j)$.

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $p_{T}(j_{1})$ .

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $p_{T}(j_{1})$ .

Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value for the one-dimensional scans of the Wilson coefficient $c_{tZ}$, using the photon pT distribution from the dilepton analysis. The value of $c^{I}_{tZ}$ is fixed to zero in the fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value for the one-dimensional scans of the Wilson coefficient $c_{tZ}$, using the combination of photon pT distributions from the dilepton and lepton+jets analyses. The value of $c^{I}_{tZ}$ is fixed to zero in the fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value for the one-dimensional scans of the Wilson coefficient $c^{I}_{tZ}$, using the photon pT distribution from the dilepton analysis. The value of $c_{tZ}$ is fixed to zero in the fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value for the one-dimensional scans of the Wilson coefficient $c^{I}_{tZ}$, using the combination of photon pT distributions from the dilepton and lepton+jets analyses. The value of $c_{tZ}$ is fixed to zero in the fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value for the one-dimensional scans of the Wilson coefficient $c_{tZ}$, using the photon pT distribution from the dilepton analysis. The value of $c^{I}_{tZ}$ is profiled in the fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value for the one-dimensional scans of the Wilson coefficient $c_{tZ}$, using the combination of photon pT distributions from the dilepton and lepton+jets analyses. The value of $c^{I}_{tZ}$ is profiled in the fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value for the one-dimensional scans of the Wilson coefficient $c^{I}_{tZ}$, using the photon pT distribution from the dilepton analysis. The value of $c_{tZ}$ is profiled in the fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value for the one-dimensional scans of the Wilson coefficient $c^{I}_{tZ}$, using the combination of photon pT distributions from the dilepton and lepton+jets analyses. The value of $c_{tZ}$ is profiled in the fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value as a function of Wilson coefficients $c_{tZ}$ and $c^{I}_{tZ}$ from the interpretation of the dilepton measurement.

Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value as a function of Wilson coefficients $c_{tZ}$ and $c^{I}_{tZ}$ from the interpretation of the dilepton and lepton+jets measurements combined.

One-dimensional 68 and 95% CL intervals obtained for the Wilson coefficients $c_{tZ}$ and $c^{I}_{tZ}$, using the photon $p_{T}$ distribution from the dilepton analysis, or the combination of photon pT distributions from the dilepton and lepton+jets analyses.

Comparison of observed $95\%$ CL intervals for the Wilson coefficients $c_{tZ}$ and $c^{I}_{tZ}$. Results are shown from a CMS ttZ measurement [JHEP 03 (2020) 056], from a CMS ttZ & tZq interpretation [arXiv:2107.13896], from a CMS ttG (lepton+jets) measurement [arXiv:2107.01508], from this measurement, and from a global fit by J. Ellis et al. [JHEP 04 (2021) 279].